Unless your are a linux heavy you can't keep Boinc working on Ubuntu. That's me. I give up. Maybe I'll try again in a year or two. But it's too frustrating to try and keep it running now.

I would pitch Linux too, but the browser keeps working and it's free.

There's a known issue with the latest repository version of BOINC and Ubuntu that has been documented here by another user. You may want to read around before giving up.

As he said, the various ways to get boinc to work in buntu/debian (compile, use my crummy hacks, etc) are not for the casual Linux user.

[You can see this thread for some unorganized ideas on how to get Boinc 7.0.26 running in a very hacked manner in Ubuntu 12.04 without compiling.]


Yes the Debian/Ubuntu repository version of Boinc 7.0.24 (and 7.0.26) is BROKE for many/most users.

The bug seems to affect S@H, and "Quake Catcher" from what I've since discovered.

It is seemingly broken because of the way it's patched/compiled by the Debian/Ubuntu folks.

So somebody important around here with Boinc needs to communicate with the Debian package managers, give them some hints. Or else they may never try to fix it.

As I've mentioned before, affected users should go here and make an account if necessary and click "this bug also affects me" in the upper left corner. Maybe if enough people complain, the right people will get involved in fixing the Debian/Ubuntu packages of 7.0.24+

This bug makes workunits instantly error upon trying to be processed. It will ruin a long list of units in a hurry, as happened to me.

The W-U error looks like this:

<core_client_version>7.0.26</core_client_version>
<![CDATA[
<message>
process exited with code 193 (0xc1, -63)
</message>
<stderr_txt>
Stack trace (11 frames):
boinc(boinc_catch_signal+0x65)[0x48f675]
/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6(+0x364c0)[0x7f215bdaf4c0]
/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6(__strcat_chk+0x39)[0x7f215be7fdb9]
boinc[0x412a34]
boinc[0x412b00]
boinc[0x43163d]
boinc[0x431adb]
boinc[0x41a728]
boinc[0x4712a4]
/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6(__libc_start_main+0xed)[0x7f215bd9a76d]
boinc[0x406a65]

</stderr_txt>

So if anyone "knows someone" please try to get the information passed along that the Debain/Ubuntu folks are compiling/patching this wrong.

Many Ubuntu/Debian users (myself included) prefer using a package manager over any other install method, and this issue could cost Boinc some users who would otherwise participate.

[Edit, I messaged someone of importance on our end about the issue on their end...]

---

#resist

According to the BOINC FAQ at http://boincfaq.mundayweb.com/index.php?view=238, your error could be caused by:

Code 193 is a segmentation violation error.

You either have problems with your memory or swap file, or the application attempts to access a memory location that it is not allowed to access, or attempts to access a memory location in a way that is not allowed (for example, attempting to write to a read-only location, or to overwrite part of the operating system).

Use a memory checking program like memtest86+ to rigorously test your memory.
And always when you have this error, report it on the forums of the application it happens with. It may well be an error in the application's code.

I'm guessing you either have RAM that is failing, a hard drive/swap file that might be failing, or that BOINC isn't configured properly on your machine and the application isn't allowed (with the right user privileges) to access the portions of memory it needs to.

Unfortunately, I cannot offer you a solution because I don't use Linux. Perhaps if you leave some more details about how you installed BOINC, someone here might be able to help you.

Oh, and run MemTest86 just to be certain that your RAM isn't failing.

Installed 7.0.26 yesterday still get 1 second and fails on all of the work I got today

See this thread for more info.
http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/forum_thread.php?id=67864

They are still working out what the problem is.

---

If he got that from a Debian/Ubuntu repository that could be the issue.

I'm just waiting for a few AP units to finish (probably by morning), then I'll be testing a 7.0.26 that's been compiled for Debian/Ubuntu without the patches suspected to be breaking the repository versions...

If that 7.0.26 doesn't have this "debian/ubuntu compilation" bug (as I'm now going to refer to it) it will be pushed into the regular Ubuntu repository post-haste. And the Debian package maintainer (who is the first in line between Berkeley and Debian/Ubuntu) knows there is a issue. So it will be sorted out in future repository upgrades.

Ill update this thread and my other one as soon as a change is made to the repository version for us Ubuntu folk. The Debian repo should get fixed shortly thereafter.

---

#resist

About ready to just remove it and quit wasting drive space on it.

Agreed, Windows is better. It simply works. :-D

Lol. Ubuntu 12.04 came out TWO WEEKS ago...

Give it a friggin chance. We should have the repository version "simply working" within a DAY OR TWO.

=P

You flame throwing turd mongers. :-D


(I remember two weeks into Windows Vista............................)

As I've mentioned before. If microsoft had this issue, they would not be working with us so closely to resolve it! That I promise you!

---

#resist

I actually like(d) Vista... started using it the day it was available and kept using it all the way until Windows 7 was released.


You're right that Microsoft would not be helping, because its not their job to debug apps or host software repositories. The only reason why the Linux community even hosts software repositories is due to the frequent compatibility issues that arise from distro to distro, and the repository is supposed to be a place where a user can find apps that are guaranteed to work.

I actually like(d) Vista... started using it the day it was available and kept using it all the way until Windows 7 was released.


You're right that Microsoft would not be helping, because its not their job to debug apps or host software repositories. The only reason why the Linux community even hosts software repositories is due to the frequent compatibility issues that arise from distro to distro, and the repository is supposed to be a place where a user can find apps that are guaranteed to work.

Ubuntu is based on Debian TESTING...

If you want a distro guaranteed to be bug free there is choice. Us *buntu folk are the head on ones in the community finding the bugs that get fixed later on for debian stable releases. If you ran Debian stable, you would not be subject to this bug. You get older versions, but they've been fixed by the community before they get there..

And I like windows. I use it everyday. I've ran 95,98,NT,2000, and 7, and have overall been happy with all except 98. Honestly I don't run linux as a desktop OS (I have 'em, but don't use 'em, except as utilities of course to fix or find faults), but as a server command line OS there is nothing better.

As far as the bug, come on, we're getting it fixed just weeks into release so give everyone a break, please.


And, the Berkeley released versions work fine for those users seasoned enough to install in Linux.

[And as far as Vista, I was referring to the widespread crashes people encountered. This was well documented, and I had to retrieve data off of unbootable drives for TWO different people, and I DO NOT do PC work for a living (however sometimes I think I should)]


And I love the way people support S@H, by putting down a whole line of operating systems that contribute users to our cause, just because of a hiccup on a brand new release of one distro, contributing negative comments instead of positive help...

---

#resist

Ubuntu is based on Debian TESTING...

If you want a distro guaranteed to be bug free there is choice. Us *buntu folk are the head on ones in the community finding the bugs that get fixed later on for debian stable releases. If you ran Debian stable, you would not be subject to this bug. You get older versions, but they've been fixed by the community before they get there..

My my... you sure do get defensive! ;-)

And I like windows. I use it everyday. I've ran 95,98,NT,2000, and 7, and have overall been happy with all except 98. Honestly I don't run linux as a desktop OS (I have 'em, but don't use 'em, except as utilities of course to fix or find faults), but as a server command line OS there is nothing better.

I've used every version since 3.0... and I even liked Windows ME.

As far as the bug, come on, we're getting it fixed just weeks into release so give everyone a break, please.

Relax.... my comment was meant to be humorous because the user clearly wants to uninstall BOINC, but I thought I would make a wisecrack about Linux.

[And as far as Vista, I was referring to the widespread crashes people encountered. This was well documented, and I had to retrieve data off of unbootable drives for TWO different people, and I DO NOT do PC work for a living (however sometimes I think I should)]

That wasn't Vista's fault, and it was clearly documented by every Tech on the internet that wasn't prejudiced against Vista. Microsoft introduced a new driver model in Vista, and nearly every manufacturer dragged their feet when it came to updating them. The manufacturers simply thought that the old XP drivers would work until they were ready to release the Vista drivers. The same story happened with Windows 95; manufacturers thought that the old Win3.1 drivers would work. The same thing happened with Windows 2000 (which was originally positioned to be the replacement consumer OS until the driver fiasco caused stability issues).

I had both myself and my girlfriend running Vista 64bit as our main OS with the proper drivers for our hardware, and we never experienced a single crash. She simply hated the nagging of the UAC prompts which I refused to turn off.

If others would have been more careful of their PC builds, they wouldn't have had the crashing issues they experienced. I also proffer that the "widespread" crashing issues weren't so widespread, but word of mouth made them seem more common than they really were.

If Vista was really so horrible and the crashes so widespread, why did the Windows Mojave Experiment work so well?

In fact, the only reason why 7 has appeared to have such a smooth rollout is because manufacturers were finally releasing drivers that were fully compatible thanks to Vista.

I'd also offer a wager that anyone could still setup Windows Vista (pre-SP1) with the properly qualified drivers and not experience a single crash, proving that it wasn't the OS at fault and that the Service Packs didn't fix some widespread issue that was causing the OS to crash.

And I love the way people support S@H, by putting down a whole line of operating systems that contribute users to our cause, just because of a hiccup on a brand new release of one distro, contributing negative comments instead of positive help...

...again: relax! I was just making a wisecrack. A play off the user's words.

Yes, I don't really care for Linux, but I don't care what people run as their OS. Its their choice. There's no reason why I can't have a little fun with it.

If Vista was really so horrible and the crashes so widespread, why did the Windows Mojave Experiment work so well?

The same reason 7 (I call it vista-2) has done so well. It didn't crash.
(I am very familiar with this ad campaign...) You and I could make any OS run good with the proper hardware... But you also have to think about the "average" machine out there. (Which another big thumbs down to microsoft is their regular practice of forcing their newest OSs out onto machines that can barely run 'em.

Yes, I don't really care for Linux, but I don't care what people run as their OS. Its their choice. There's no reason why I can't have a little fun with it.

=P

So get an old build out and start learning. ;-)

And I don't mind you giving me grief Ozz. ;-)

...just so long as the truly ignorant don't come in here talking junk about things they don't know.

Best regards,

---

#resist

So get an old build out and start learning. ;-)

I have Linux collections dating back to kernel 1.2.x - its not a matter of learning, its a matter of interest. I get far too frustrated with the package/library hell, the serious lack of intuitiveness of the GUI (IMO, of course), the lack of wizards for installers (everyone gives Windows crap for them, but they're a great idea), the Linux filesystem hierarchy simply bothers me to no end (drives should be designated by a letter, not a mount point) and far too many other complaints to mention without making this look like a Linux bash-fest.

That isn't to say that I don't have a laundry list of complaints about Windows, its just that I find the issues with Windows bearable (including dealing with malware). ;-D

Do not want to uninstall just frustrated sorry

The bug in the repository versoins of Boinc has been figured out.

Now it's just up to the package maintainers to make a few decisions and do a few more tests. Hopefully a fix will get in the repository today or tomorrow.

We're testing a 7.0.27 build now, (I think they're trying to pick between .26 and .27 for the repository, just need to make sure 7.0.27 won't have the bug)

---

#resist

I'm starting to get very upset about the Ubuntu situation.

Now it's all red tape, and waiting.

In a few days if it's not fixed, I will be making my own PPA at launchpad so at least the users here have a simple install method for a working Boinc.

---

#resist

I encountered the bug and was quite unhappy with it and the software updater bug. I gave up on Ubuntu/Kubuntu and moved on over to OpenSUSE

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

Ozz was just talking badly about repositories the other day.

I defended the process. Now I see that the process kind of sucks!

We figured out a major bug in Ubuntu's package. And now the higher-ups are saying "well, you can't just change the package, you're not allowed to, you need this authorization and" blah blah blah...

I left a simple message stating: "I sure hope you authorize this change, because you currently have a BROKEN package that doesn't work for one of the larger projects running under Boinc."

As I said, I'm just frustrated with this process, I've put a lot of work into helping determine the issue, only to be told, "we need authorization" blah blah

Maybe I should just switch distros, and get used to compiling stuff myself.

But that doesn't help the angry Ubuntu users in our forums...

And if they do get the fix authorized, I fear it will still be 7.0.24, when it has been mentioned several times that 7.0.27 "has several fixes in it and that should be the used package for now until something more stable is available."

Blah it's just a waiting game now.

(Anyways I'm back off to get this server running for my friend. )

---

#resist